Weather
No winners yet in fluoride debate (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
|
|
|
|
No winners yet in fluoride debate
1:01pm Tuesday 21st October 2008
-
- By Jon Reeve » Education Reporter
HEAVYWEIGHTS from both sides of the fluoride argument squared up against each other last night, but neither managed to deliver a knockout blow.
Around 150 people turned up for the first of three Question Time-style debates between the opposing sides of the argument surrounding plans to fluoridate two thirds of Southampton’s water supply.
Experts including England’s chief dental officer and the head of an international anti-fluoride coalition took their opportunities to air and explain their views and score points against each other.
But those who came hoping to make up their minds are likely to have left with even more questions about the controversial scheme than when they arrived at St Mary’s Stadium.
As could be expected from a subject on which the most widely-accepted study said there is a lack of high quality evidence on most claims both for and against, there was much contradiction among the panel.
What was evident from both sides, and from many of those in the audience, was the passion the issue stirs.
The debate’s independent c h a i r m a n , Hampshire - based broadcaster Peter White admitted he had been told he could cut the twohour session short if there was a lack of questions from the floor.
But he could probably have held all three scheduled sessions back-to-back and the a r g u m e n t s would still have raged long into the night.
England’s top dentist, Barry Cockcroft, and Southampton City Primary Care Trust dental consultant, Dr Jeyanthi John told the audience fluoride is a proven method of reducing tooth decay.
“The benefits are clearly demonstrated, it has a benefit for absolutely everybody and that is undeniable,” said Dr Cockcroft.
“Nobody has ever come up with the evidence to back up the scare stories.”
But Professor Paul Connett, founder of the Fluoride Action Network, and former Southampton PCT board member Dr Stephen Peckham said studies have never been carried out into side effects.
“Since fluoridation came in the main focus of the money has gone into studies on the effects on teeth, teeth and teeth,” said Prof Connett.
“Teeth aren’t the only tissue in the body.”
Prof Connett ended the night by challenging his opponents to provide by the second debate scientific rebuttals of 23 studies from China, India, Iran and Mexico, he said show links with lower IQ, cancers and thyroid problems.
The second and third events will held on November 18 and December 3.
More News stories
- 32,000 hit by benefits squeeze
- City’s most beautiful compete for Miss Great Britain title
- Age is no barrier to beauty for Christyne
- Injured war heroes find looking for glory at Cowes
- Boy steps on 4inch screw
- Leap of faith for daredevil council boss
- Community to pray for Shawn’s family
- Sickness bug at hotel wrecked our holiday
- Keep paddling dad, I’m right behind you!
- Sailors head to Cowes
Your Say YourEcho
Rob444, Southampton says...
10:25pm Wed 22 Oct 08
WRONG!
The onus must be on the South Central Strategic Health Authority to provide evidence that adding any chemical to drinking water will not be injurous to health in any way.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that it is the Authority that wants to change things, not consumers.
Any lack of objection cannot be taken to be the same as giving consent, ask any solicitor.
Your sayYour Echo
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Daily Echo account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
No winners yet in fluoride debate
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
now in the north, bolton says...
9:11pm Wed 22 Oct 08
If you dont believe they mean to calm us all by this method please consider the FACT that moods altering medications such as prosac, which are to calm you down, are around 94% fluoride.
The chemicals used to 'wash' the waste product from the fertilizer/aluminium
/bomb making industries are still in relavent quantities within this gunk when they add it to the water. Arsenic, silicon, mercury to name a few.
Silicon Halides (formed within the body by hexafluorisilicic acids unstable chemical structure,is the only chemical that scientists have found can enduce rapid cancers (for cancer research) in the lab. There has already been a huge increase in us studies comparing non and fluoridated areas.
Now, Im not saying that the all rich and powerful are trying to kill us, but you can see on you tube, some very powerful american leaders stating how we need to reduce the population by one third.
So consider, a very expensive to dispose of, toxic waste, is bought by our taxes to add to the water to help our teeth (our childrens teeth actually). We drink that water and absorb even more by washing in it, and more still by washing our skin with toiletries containg Sodium laurel sulphate (used to increase absorbtion of medicines via the skin) and spill the rest into the rivers and lakes to have yet more added next time round.
In the mean time, people get cancers which the NHS are increasingly refusing to treat, increased deaths from these cancers, alzeimers, osteosarcoma etc, fertility is reduced lowering the birth rate, population is subdued (so wont complain).....all contributing to the decrease in population by a third, as stated by previously mentioned persons.
Laws have been made that mean the water companies cannot be heald responsible for mishaps or damages but instead the health authority (funded by your taxes) will take that burden. This means you will pay more tax everytime the fluoridation system goes wrong. Even fluorosis of the teeth (inflicting 40-78% of kids in ireland) has been listed as being only cosmetic so not treatable under the NHS dental services. So when your 7 year old gets his first adult teeth and the are muddy brown you wont get treatment for it from your tax money, and when he gets osteosarcoma in his late teens, the NHS can refuse treatment on grounds of costs.
Someone who dies from smoking induced cancer is listed as dying from cancer not smoking. Someone who has fluoride induced cancer...cancer instead of fluoride poisoning.
Our head mistress wanted to speak to us about fluoride from a personal interest angle, but stated even if she decided to avoid fluoride she must still teach that its good for you under the rules of the local authority!!!
All in the name of profits!!! It's all just business.